090, The top of the range Caltex fuel is fine as it comes from either Shell or Mobil in Vic, BP in WA and Caltex in QLD...........The issues with Shell Optimax (Ultimate is the BP grade that is very good too) are ongoing and something was not right when it was launched some 6 years ago. it is why people who run their bikes on Shell prefer the 95 grade. When it first came out I tried a tank full out of curiosity and I almost ran out of the Mobil 8000 so rode into a Shell garage at filled up wth Optimax. I took off down the road and when the Mobil was finsihed and replaced with Shell in the float bowl the difference in ridability was profound. With a steady throttle opening cruising down the road the speed and power dropped off requiring me to open the throttle a little more to maintain the same speed. I went back to Mobil or BP. A few weeks after this lots of publicity came to the fore about Optimax from cars and bikes. Shell lost the supply to the Dutton Rally, Targa and other major events due to the issues. BP took over this contract. Shell had to backpedal somewhat and about 2 years ago launched V-Power 100.
To expand Lozza's comment about the use of 95 octane fuel see below correspondence between myself and Fuels2Race in Sydney a few years back. Do not discount the use of 95 fuel it may be better, in fact I will try it for next weekends Vinduro at Harrow:
Q3. Any advantage to normal sports car with ECU tuned to suit EPA standard and 95 Octane fuel?
A. Yes, absolutely!! Firstly, most factory built ‘performance’ cars are set to take advantage of common and widely available unleaded 95 RON petroleum fuel (which can also vary considerably in quality and the time of year due to the 4 main, summer, autumn, winter and spring blends produced by the majors) from the majors’ petrol station network, however, most standard ECU only work around 70-80% engine potential to allow for everyday driving such as in traffic, bad maintenance, primary lubricant dependant engine wear and high mileage. Secondly, it is the engines volumetric efficiency and construction parameters which depict what octane level it can actually use when performance is the main issue, which is also why there are so many ECU mods available. Thirdly and the most important is engines use heat to produce power and not all the driving power (energy) is necessarily reached at maximum volumetric efficiency or RPM, a lot of driving power (more in line with the engines torque) can be had at lower engine revs from a fuel with additional energy features producing more low/mid power as well as peak power.
To further understand the difference, I give you an example from tests we carried out on a BMW 325i, a Porsche Boxster and Mercedes E200 Kompressor, all come set to run on premium unleaded 95 octane petrol and all have computer fuel monitoring. In the case of the Merc, it ran virtually identical mileage, between 8.6-8.9 litres per 100 K’s at 110 KPH highway speeds on 95 or 98 commercial fuel, however trialing our 100+ it used less throttle setting at the same 110 KPH and only consumed 7.3 litres per 100 K’s, showing the 100+ fuel to have more energy. So what does this mean or translate to, well in performance tests at Western Sydney International Dragway and at Wakefield Park Raceway, a number of tests were done but taking 2 seconds off the 0 to 160 acceleration test by nothing more than a fuel change from 98 octane commercial fuel to our 100+ proved substantial.
We now have a whole range of racer feedback on differing combinations producing certain dyno engine or rear wheel power gains and certainly a mass of improved and consistent track performances.
Another point is that I found that the higher the octane of fuel I ran in the 2 stroke the less throttle opening I had to use, I rode one enduro with only 1/4 to 1/2 throttle openings all day, that 102 race fuel was amazing.
I didnt try anything higher than 102 and cannot say if by the law of diminishing returns it would get better with anything higher (Then we start talking about $6 a litre fuel here!!) before performance or benefits declined.
http://www.maximausa.com/products/2stroke/supermpremix.asp Mamixa is one of the USA's leading motorcycle oil manufacturers and from what I have learnt from their R&D over the last 25 years they really are the innovators. As part of my technical training in the late 80's I read about Dick Lichien's pioneering work (Maxima's owner) on blending castor oils with POE's that was an exciting time for the motorcycle industry. Other oil majors then copied Maxima's work to bring out A747 and other Castor/Synthetics when the patent expired. I used their products way back then but then went 4 stroke and used another brand. I would have full confidence with their products due to the research and testing that has gone through with this product. Unlike some other US oil firms that are owned by outside family investors, not engaged in the company, Maxima is owned and run by enthusiasts whose entire lives are dedicated to perfecting a product and are not scared to trial and error new ideas, so you can use their products with full confidence..
The Maxima Super M is on the slightly heavy side of viscosity grade so run no richer than 25:1. I would personally use their Super M Injector (That is still suitable for premix, it just runs a lighter base fluid) which is half the viscosity of the other Super M and you can use that to 20:1. Also their Premium 2 down to 20-25:1 in our VMX bikes is more than suitable.
http://www.maximausa.com/technical/oilmigration.html An excellent post here about 2T oil migration. It would have been great if Maxima also stated which one of their oils was used in this test as that would help to make more sense when interpreting the figures and drawing conclusions. From my interpretation it was either their Castor 927 or SuperM Premix heavier grade blends.
I have already addressed the situation with the Motul 800 and am surprised that 090 is the only person so far that has quarantined it and not gone ahead with mixing and running it in your bike. Perhaps you were making coffee and added 2 lumps into your oil by error. It appears to be additive agglomeration from a blending malfunction, unsatisfactory blending or an issue with the additive supplier. Perhaps the additves were not heated sufficiently before beign added to he base fluids in the blend vat. The Motul lab will be able to tell in a jiffy once they get a sample. I am also surprised that Motul have not issued a product recall as this seems like a widespread problem where you would think at least someone would have bitched to the importer or to Motul in France and commenced an investigation and recalled all the stock of the affected batch number. This is 2 months old now and nothing seems to have been done.
We need more people in the future posting photo's of their pistons running variuos oils and mixes. Ji seems to have everything in order with the operation and running of his bikes and if all of us ran such a tight and professional maintenance regime many of our problems with breakdowns and wear would not occur as often. What appears to me with Ji's piston is that it is at the very edge of the graph with regards to its minimum acceptable oil ratio. Any leaner and you may start to expereince more scuffing. With more oil now (of a different viscosity grade) you will experience more HP gains due to greater lubricity and friction reduction inside your engines. You will find it much easier to mix and blend with your fuel. No more spoons required.
It will take time for riders to change their premix formulations with new oil to then determine its affectiveness.
